View Single Post
  #112  
Old 02-13-2019, 01:48 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You are comparing underground subways to overground rail lines. And you are comparing these through very, very dense urban areas to the comparatively wide open expanses between cities in California.

The most recent estimate for this project that I see claims 82 per mile, do you have a more recent cite?


Most of that span is across very open and flat areas, can even co-locate right next to existing rail lines for easier infrastructure for much of the way.
The silver line is not underground for the new tracks they laid and they put it either in the median of an existing highway or elevated it above crowded places.

The latest cost estimate for the Bakersfield to Merced high speed rail is 89 million per mile. That is the best case scenario for costs. That is a flat route that goes through mostly empty land. The problem with new rail is that it can either be useful or easy to build. NYC to LA would be useful but it would pass through three mountain ranges, and New Jersey the most densely populated state.
In 2012 Amtrak estimated that building high speed rail from DC to Boston would cost 345 million per mile. That plan was dropped because residents in the areas that the train would go through objected.